Spillover Effects of Foreclosures on Neighborhood Property Values

  • Zhenguo LinEmail author
  • Eric Rosenblatt
  • Vincent W. Yao


Previous studies have shown that foreclosure often results in vandalism, disinvestment and other negative spillover effects in the neighborhood. This paper extends these views into a formal theoretical model through pricing based on comparables. We project that the spillover effect of a foreclosure on neighborhood property values depends on two factors: the discount of foreclosure sale and the weight placed on the foreclosed property as a comparable in the valuation. The former is related to housing cycle and the latter varies by time of foreclosure and its distance from the subject property. Empirical results based on a 2006 sample show that this effect is significant within a radius of 0.9 km (roughly 10 blocks) and within 5 years from its liquidation. The most severe impact is an 8.7% discount on neighborhood property values, which gradually drops to anywhere between −1.2 to −1.7% for foreclosures liquidated within the past 5 years. These spillover effects vary slightly when the sample selection bias is taken into account. Based on an alternative sample of purchase transactions in 2003, the estimated spillover effects in booming years are reduced by half, confirming on the important role played by housing cycles.


Foreclosure Spillover Valuation 


  1. Baxter, V., & Lauria, M. (2000). Residential Mortgage Foreclosure and Neighborhood Change. Housing Policy Debate, 11, 675–699.Google Scholar
  2. Cannon, S., Norman, G. M., & Gurupdesh S. P. (2006). Risk and Return in the U.S. Housing Market: A Cross-sectional Asset-Pricing Approach. Real Estate Economics, 34(4), 519–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins, M. (2003). Chicago’s Homeownership Preservation Challenge: Foreclosures, Mimeo, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  4. Cutts, A. C., & Green R. K. (2004). Innovative Servicing Technology: Smart Enough to Keep People in Their Houses? Freddie Mac Working Paper No. 04–03. Washington, DC: Freddie Mac. World Wide Web page <> (accessed April 20, 2007).
  5. Deng, Y., Pavlov, A. D., & Yang, L. (2005). Spatial Heterogeneity in Mortgage Terminations by Refinance, Sale and Default. Real Estate Economics, 33(4), 739–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deng, Y., Quigley, J. M., & Van Order, R. (2000). Mortgage Terminations, Heterogeneity and the Exercise of Mortgage Options. Econometrica, 68(2), 275–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Focardi, C. (2002). Servicing Default Management: An Overview of the Process and Underlying Technology. TowerGroup Research Note, No. 033-13C (November 15, 2002).Google Scholar
  8. Forgey, F., Rutherford, R., & VanBuskirk, M. (1994). Effect of Foreclosure Status on Residential Selling Price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 9, 313–318.Google Scholar
  9. Goldstein, I., Maggie, M., Al, P., & Daniel, U.-A. (2005). Mortgage Foreclosure Filings in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Reinvestment Fund. World Wide Web page <> (accessed April 22, 2007).
  10. Goodman, J. L. (1992). A Housing Market Matching Model of the Seasonality in Geographic Mobility. Journal of the Real Estate Research, 8(1), 117–137.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman, A. C., & Thibodeau, T. G. (1997). Dwelling-Age-Related Heteroskedasticity in Hedonic House Price Equations: An Extension. Journal of Housing Research, 8(2), 299–317.Google Scholar
  12. Halverson, R., & Palmquist, R. (1980). The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Regressions. American Economic Review, 70, 474–475.Google Scholar
  13. Hardin, W., & Wolverton, M. (1996). The Relationship between Foreclosure Status and Apartment Price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 12, 101–109.Google Scholar
  14. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Immergluck, D., & Smith, G. (2005). Measuring the Effects of Subprime Lending on Neighborhood Foreclosures: Evidence from Chicago. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 362–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Immergluck, D., & Smith, G. (2006). The External Costs of Foreclosure: The Impact of Single-Family Mortgage Foreclosures on Property Values. Housing Policy Debate, 17, 57–79.Google Scholar
  17. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lacour-Little, M. (2000). The Evolving Role of Technology in Mortgage Finance. Journal of Housing Research, 11(2), 173–205.Google Scholar
  19. Lin, Z., & Liu, Y. (2007). Real Estate Return and Risk with Heterogeneous Investors. forthcoming in Real Estate Economics.Google Scholar
  20. Lin, Z., & Vandell, K. (2007). Illiquidity and Pricing Biases in the Real Estate Market. Real Estate Economics, 35, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarthy, G., VanZandt, S., & Rohe, W. (2001). The Economic Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research. Working Paper 01–02. Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.Google Scholar
  22. Moreno, A. (1995). The Cost-Effectiveness of Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention. Minneapolis: Family Housing Fund.Google Scholar
  23. National Association of Realtors, Research Division. (2004). Rising Foreclosure Rates in Indiana: An Explanatory Analysis of Contributing Factors. World Wide Web page < > (accessed April 16, 2007).
  24. National Training and Information Center. (1999). Preying on Neighborhoods: Subprime Mortgage Lenders and Chicagoland Foreclosures. Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and IMPLICIT Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simons, R. A., Quercia, R. G., & Maric, I. (1998). The Value of Residential Construction and Neighborhood Disinvestment in Residential Sales Price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 15(1/2), 147–161.Google Scholar
  27. Vandell, K. D. (1991). Optimal Comparable Selection and Weighting in Real Property Valuation. ARERUEA Journal, 19(2), 213–239.Google Scholar
  28. Vandell, K. D. (1995). How Ruthless Is Mortgage Default? A Review and Synthesis of the Evidence. Journal of Housing Research, 6(2), 245–264.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fannie MaeWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations